Forum Topic

CPZ abuse

Can it be a coincidence that the proposed CPZ changes reported on this website were slipped in a now barely circulated local newspaper, are proposals that best suit the employer of the same councillor responsible for parking ?I wonder if he is to be one of the recipients of said permits?This councillor and his chums and their somewhat distorting & underhand methods are nothing short of despicable.Every paying CPZ permit holder should have been clearly informed about the intentions of changes to the system. This should have been done in 'About Ealing' and/or emailing every CPZ holder which would contact the vast majority.If I get emails from LBE consulting me on all manner of proposals many of which are not relevant to me, why not one on something that is?It's a fiddle. It's seems also to be a rather characteristic technique of this councillor's employer, A2Dominion.  Are they pulling his strings?Just 25 permits near a station or shopping area will be enough to return some streets to the problems that led residents to sign up to a CPZ in the first place.It wholly undermines those who are paying already too much for all day zones which exist because of the risk of all day and part day parking.The original remit for CPZs in Ealing was as a service first and foremost to local residents.It was also not for profit and would never rise higher than the rate of inflation.This was reiterated again and again.  I know. I was one who attended many 'resident partnership' meetings with the then Labour administration when the CPZs were in their infancy. Zone C in particular.  " Any operating surplus will be ploughed back into the zones for improvements to roads and services"In any case, why are local registered GPs having to pay for permits? Why do they not have free permits for Zones that fall into their practice domains?In actual terms it costs nothing. A very poor justification and rather crass to use medics as an excuse to justify others most certainly not deserving.Why are full time unpaid carers paying for permits?Why are elderly over 80 not getting an allowance of free visitor permits?Businesses have had to pay top dollar if they happen to be based inside a CPZ.This hit sole traders and small businesses like small shops very hard and forced some out completely.This latest proposal is purely to suit this councillors employers at A2Dominion who no doubt will be paying for the permits from the large amount of taxpayers money they receive with no accountability.It is bad enough that a Council Leader has failed to explain a highly unorthodox arrangement with A2D over a property but to find another high ranking portfolio councillor also employed by the said company and behind a rather hypocritical change that undermines the whole ethos the CPZ scheme nothing short of shameless.It would not surprise me if they also get free permits.As others have mentioned, there really should be a rather full investigation, why is this not being pressed hard for?

Mark Kehoe ● 3994d25 Comments

ANPRS (Automatic Number Plate Recognition System) Is now used as a justification for the DVLA dropping the paper disc.However there are red faces and a stark silence when pushed on the fact that this system is far from failsafe.The reading devices cannot read accurately unless almost parallel to the number plate. This is fine if in a vehicle equipped with such apparatus as it will be able to align by distance and focal zone as can fixed position units.What ANPRS cannot fully read are vehicle plates parked bumper to bumper or less than 1m apart. Nor can they clearly read from acute angles. This will involve operatives having to punch in date by hand as the image will be unverifable legally as obtuse and acute reading angles cause mistakes on readers. It will take an age to do and be accurate. There will be no means to cross check as can be done with a paper permit.With tightly parked vehicles, Police cannot spot stolen or untaxed vehicles without stopping and making manual visual checks. Given that they barely have time to to their existing duties and Parking operative will not have the skills nor training to check or the health and safety clearance to stand in live roads to take a reading, this seems like yet another myopic decision by the officers or politicians behind this decision.Nor will residents and citizens be able to report a suspicious or untaxed vehicle. Is it or isn't it?The DVLA paperless system is not in full effect and will not be until the end part of 2015. It will be at least 2 years before data will be collated to see if it has increased or decreased evasion. But as they have no means and large enough resources to identify closely parked cars all over the UK, it's anybodies guess.So to jump the gun is pure folly, Pure stupidity or gullibility, or both.I'll bet Serco are laughing all the way to the bank.

Mark Kehoe ● 3988d

Today the Council has announced that its parking permits and vouchers are to be dematerialised from 6th April.  This will save the council money but it is not of obvious benefit to residents.  In the matter of the widely abused service vouchers it will be a positive disbenefit.  Residents will no longer be able to spot that business permit and service voucher users are clogging up their roads for commuting purposes.  This problem is particularly acute in Zone W around the Council’s own Perceval House offices and in Zone JJ where social housing provider A2Dominion seems to enjoy protected status.  If you look at the council’s own figures the use of service vouchers has jumped by one third in only two years in spite of a 20% price increase.  Every other category of permit or voucher is declining or stagnant.  You can only conclude that these vouchers, which are widely abused by Council and A2Dominion staff, are priced wrong.  Or something more distasteful is happening.  There is no way the economy has grown by one third to drive this increase.  It isn’t down to one third more people having tradespeople visit their homes in CPZs.  It is a function of Council and A2Dominion staff circumventing the intention of CPZ which is to keep commuters out of residential areas.  The word has got out amongst these workers that they can game the system.  The Council must know from its own data that this is going on.  The move to dematerialise CPZ permits in April will make it hard for residents to spot that business permits and  service vouchers are being used or abused.  These permits should remain paper based until the Council can convince people it has got a grip on this issue.

Phil Taylor ● 3989d

As I mentioned before, The Council use 'Around Ealing' for notices which gets circulated to every council tax paying household. They also do online consultations.I am asking why not this time? as it involves residents who are paying for a local service.Councils are not allowed to use CPZs as Cash Cows. Eric Pickles has already reminded several Authorities of that.Thirdly, why are Health Workers servicing the community being charged for permits in the areas they work? CPZs are an artificial creation which is a 'benefit' for residents in areas where parking by non residents has caused problems.They are far from ideal in most situations but they do work in most instances.In Ealing there are a few questionable CPZs. The streets behind Haven Green are now devoid of parked vehicles and this zone must make a loss as the vast majority of residences have multiple off street parking, wider than average roads and parking makes little difference to daily life other than the sight of many parked cars, whereas small streets with no off street parking do suffer.If these permits are sold for these unused zones, where space is in abundance then that is fine, But for areas like Zone C ,D ,S and N just for example, where there are often more permit holders than spaces it should not be the case.Extra revenue should be used for improvements in the zones or for benefits like free visitor permits for the elderly (who are the forgotten casualties of CPZs becoming further isolated from visitors)Charging fees to GPs is ludicrous. Who will pick up the tab? Not them. It will be the Health Service or the local health budget. In other words, the taxpayer.They should have a free permit for their practice boundaries and for work use only, the exception being if they live within the same zones.As for local estate agents. What makes them so much more important than anyone else who use a car for their occupation? They, unlike other occupations are local, so there is a thing called a bus and another thing called a bicycle and things called feet. They only need visitors permits for viewings and valuations and hardly carry tools or heavy equipment .I work all over the place, I often carry over 20kg of equipment. I have to pay in CPZs and car parks. In some parts of London it's almost as much as I earn to park.  So I use Public Transport and suffer the inevitable physical consequences.I don't like it but why should others get preferential deals if they or their employers can afford it? That is yet again, one rule for the rich etc etc. But in actuality, Wrong.This is why residents in each zone should have been contacted and consulted.It needs to be debated explained and there is supposed to be stakeholder input into CPZs. Residents in the zones are part stakeholders. The Council operate it on their (our) behalves.  I don't recall this being changed or notified.Residents also retain the right to petition for removal or alteration of Zones. Something that was agreed when Zone C was conceived after a long hard battle by Lammas residents whom had been left out of initial consultation but included in the proposed zone. All this went down in writing. I recall several Councillors, The officer in charge Daniel Metzger and his colleague called Eva all being present, with minutes taken, at the then Technical Services offices in the Uxbridge Road.If it is a simple cock-up then fine, it happens. In which case it needs to be done properly by the same means as described above. Plus contact to residents associations, most of which have had input into zones in their domains.But I have seen and heard enough locally of late to take to this forum as too many 'co-incidences' revolving around the same things cannot be, well, a co-incidence.

Mark Kehoe ● 3994d